ELSIE WALKER CASE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 210, 23 August 1929, Page 7

ELSIE WALKER CASE

THE LATEST DEVELOPMENT REOPENING AN INQUEST. DOES AUTHORITY EXIST fl Although Mr. F. K. Hunt. S.M., has suggested to the Crown Prosecutor that the Elsie Walker inquest be reopened, or a prosecution for perjury instituted, considerable doubt exists to to whether under the New Zealand law, any power exists to reopen an inquest. An Auckland barrister, whoso opinion was sought by the “Star” on the point, said:— “Authorities are extremely scant. There is power vested in the Supreme Court for quashing the inquisition (id est), verdict or finding, of the coroner. This jurisdiction is exercised very frequently in England and there are many authorities that can be referred to Apparently the power to hold a second inquest is derived in England from an Act of Parliament which we have not iu New Zea* land.

“There is legal authority for the view that a coroner’s verdict may he quashed upon the application of the police authorities, made with the acquiescence of the coroner, that they are dissatisfied with the verdict given. There is considerable doubt whether, after the verdict has been returned by the coroner, the proceedings can be re-openerl. In certain cases of purely techincalities, ot where the coroner misdirected the jury, or where the verdict w'as defective. there is a common law power to apply to the Supreme Court to quash the inquisition and hold a new inquiry. “In 1860, in the case of [he Queen versus White, it was decided that, an inqnest having been held upon view of the body and a verdict given, a coroner could not of his own motion. hold a second inquest.

ENGLISH ACT NOT APPLICABLE “Apparently to overcome the grave inconvenience of this state of the law, the Coroner’s Act of 1887 was passed in England. This Act has no application in New Zealand, hut it authorises the High Court of Justice, if an application is made by the the Attorney-General, that lie is satisfied that a< inquest has been held and that by insufficiency of inquiry, it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest be held, the Court may order another to bo held. New Zealand legislation relating to coroners confers no such power on th® gupreihe Court. “In the case cited, the Queen v. White, tiie facts were that the coroner held an inquest on May 17, 1860, at which a verdict was given that deceased died by the ‘visitation of God.’ On the following day, before the body was buried, the coroner received further information and upon that he deemed it his duty to hold a second inquest, being of the opinion that it occasioned further inquiry. At the second inque.-t a verdict of wilful murder against White, as the principal, was returned, and .against Fisher as accessory. TJie full court of tho Queen’s Bench Ihvision was moved to quash the second finding. In the judgment delivered by Chief Justice Cockburn, he said that the Court had tho authority of Lord Hale and the uniform practice in support of the proposition that the coroner, could not hold a second inquest while the previous inquest was still existing. Cockburn, C.J.. also said the coroner in holding an inquest performed to a certain extent an official office and discharged Ins duty as soon as his verdict was given. A VERY PECULIAR CASE. “It appears that from these views,” tho barrister concluded, “that n case of a very peculiar description lias arisen. Apparently

further evidence of material value is available, which may or may not influence the coroner. It would seem that it is not open to the coroner to reopen the inquest for tho purpose of hearing this evidence. This rule appears to have found the occasion for inconvenience in England and in 1887 an Act was passed altering it. No similar statutory provision exists in New Zealand. “It thus must be seen that it is at least open to. question whether, under any circumstances, the inquest can be renewed or reopened. This case appeal’s to be one in which the Government ought to take action and the necessary clauses from the English Act followed. Indeed, it may be said that a bill should be passed by the New Zealand Parliament.”